Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
in high threat environment. how to get out beyond the walls of our facilities. how do we remain successful in the private sector while still securing our embassies and protecting our people in these environments? the review board correctly points out the department has been resource-challenge for many years. this has constrained our mission, and restricting the use of resources even for security has become a conditioned response. decisions about the security resources being made more on costs than value. the approach fails to recognize the diplomacy and foreign aid put down payments in terms of good will, open borders for the export of american products, protection of intellectual property, and cooperation on security and counterterrorism. there is a lot to discuss. welcome again. we appreciate your time. on a personal note, since this is likely to be your last hearing before this committee and your leadership will be missed, i speak for many when i say you have been an outstanding secretary of state, you have changed the face of america abroad, and extended the house killed the bill -- ho
on the current peninsula. -- on the korean peninsula. it is a different environment that requires a different level of physical stamina. we want to make sure we get the standards right. we don't want to over engineer them either, they ought to be fair. then we allow individuals of any sex to compete for the position. >> is it just physical standards? >> no, it not just physical standards. the standards we have for occupational -- for these military occupations or the military calls them ratings they including the from mental standards to physical standards. but physical standards are the one that people focus on. >> what about privacy? >> we can fix out privacy. -- we can figure out privacy. we figured that out right from the start. by the way, desert shield, desert storm 1991 h we did live in that environment where we were somewhat in the zests and we figured out privacy. -- we were somewhat nomadic and we figured out privacy. we can do that. >> the fact is, women are now in the ranks and that was the concern of the time. but we've been able to adapt to that situation. women are fighter pilo
, meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. that weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. the weapon itself has features to adjusted, optics sites, for example, that can cost hundreds of dollars and i have shot this weapon many times. it would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers whether it is from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire the weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. the optic sites are amazing. the technology advances that weapon as -- that weapon is the weapon of our time. that is where we find ourselves today and certainly, i believe, is meant for the battlefield and a public safety environment only. >> thank you. mr. chairman, before i yield my time, i would like to submit testimony of maya ronman who is here today lost her father in a shooting in september in minneapolis. i would like unanimous consent to submit your testimony for the record. -- her testimony for the record. >> as we indicated earlier, there will be other s
create a totally secure environment for him in benghazi on september 10 and 11? >> no. the number of diplomatic security personnel requested in the cables is five. there were five there that night. with him. plus there was a mutual understanding with the annex that had a much more heavily armed presence because of the work they were doing in the region. it is very difficult to, in retrospect, to really anticipate what might have been. one of the r.s.o.'s who had served in libya said the kind of attack the compound suffered had not been anticipated. we had gotten used to preparing for car bombs and suicide bombings and things like that but this was of a different nature. and we even saw that at the annex, which was much more heavily fort fid, had much more heavy military equipment, we lost two of our best and had one of our diplomatic security officers badly injured. he's still at walter reed. so even the annex which had more assets in the face of the attack was suffering losses that night. >> thank you very much. >> mr. moreno of pennsylvania. >> good afternoon, madam speaker -- m
of the degree of danger that existed at the time. now the environment as changed the degree is somewhat different. now those effects might become dominant. yes, i can see a down side for doing things that you believe are effective and legal and appropriate if it denies you the cooperation of others who see it in a different way. i think we're all aware of that. we knew that. in 2006, it was huddle up, the world has changed, what is appropriate going forward with no judgment whatsoever on what went on before. different circumstances, different people. not -- >> not having read the report, i would say that become its released it needs to be fixed program had no value. they need to take a second look and maybe spend more time and talk to those who were involved in the program. in terms of the ethical question, in writing hard measures, i spent a lot of time talking to people who worked with me. some of my deputies were very senior analysts, very logical. these are folk who is will analyze every aspect of everything. i asked him this question and he gave me a long explanation, 15-minute exp
these decisions have on the environment that the u.s. is in. for most of history, we have maintained a strong military, not so that we can fight, but so that we can not fight. the other. that time made that is important -- the other point that tom made is to understand what is involved in military operations. there is a piece on the web that explains exactly what it is we can do with the troops we have at the president makes critical decisions about afghanistan. it is not just about bureaucrats in d.c.. fighting a war is a big logistical exercise. do you does want to talk about that and several surrounding decisions? >> we have become very accustomed to throwing around numbers of troops, and people have gotten way too comfortable with pulling numbers out of the air and discussing them as though they were serious. the effect of that is that very few americans actually understand that there is a method for figuring out how many troops are actually needed to accomplish something. when the recommendation comes from a military commander, this cannot just, as this white house seems to think, the co
the external environment has changed that the degree of danger is different now those effects may become dominant. and so yes, i can see a down side for doing thing that you believe are effective, legal and appropriate. if it denies you the cooperation of others who see it in a different way. and i think we're all aware of that. we knew that. hence in 2006, we huddled up. what's appropriate going forward with no judgment whatsoever on what went on before? different circumstances. different people. >> not having read the c.i. report, i would say that before it's released, it needs to be fixed. if, in fact, it concludes that the enhanced interrogation program had no value, they need to take a second look and maybe even spend more time and talk to those of us who that were involved in the program way back when. i spent a lot of time talking to people who work with me. so my deputies were very senior analysts, very logical and these are folks that will analyze even aspect of things. and he gave me a 15-republican explanation as to why he thought it was ethical and why he agreed to participat
? in 1992, you had the riots in los angeles. you could find yourself in a lawless environment in this country. the story was about a place called koreatown. there are marauding gangs going through the area burning stores, looting and robbing. the vice-president said in response to me, he said, no, you would be better off with a 12 gauge shotgun. that is his opinion, and i respect it. i have an ar-15 at home and i have not hurt anybody and i do not intend to, but i would be better off protecting my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my neighborhood. i do not think that makes me an unreasonable person. mr. trotter when you say you speak on behalf of millions of women out there who believe an ar-15 makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the room, and that explains the dilemma. the people who were giggling were saying to you, that is crazy. nobody i know thinks that way. which reminds me of the harvard professor who said i cannot believe mcgovern lost. everyone i knew voted for him. i bet there are people on our side that cannot believe obama won because ever
environment, with some any competing priorities, i would ask you to give considerable thought into limiting significantly resources that would not help us as an economy, not help us as a country, and not help a schoolboy -- not help us globally. >> i have a lot of specific thoughts on it. the solution to climate change is energy policy. and the opportunities of energy policy so vastly outweigh the down sides that you are expressing concern about. and i will spend a lot of time trying to persuade you and other colleagues of this. if you want to do business and do it well in america, you have to get into the energy race. other countries are in it. in massachusetts, the fastest growing sector of our economy is clean energy and energy efficiency companies. and they are growing faster than any other sector. the same is true in california. this is a job creator. i cannot emphasize that strongly enough. the market that made america rich -- richer -- we have always been reached -- but the market them it is richer in the 1990's was the technology market. it was a $1 trillion market with 1 billion us
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)